Uncommon Knowledge: Dennis Prager on Why America Is Still the Best Hope [Video]

Obama’s Patriotism

By Lauri B. Regan | June 20, 2012 | American Thinker

 Last week, I attended a luncheon hosted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, at which I sat next to former Navy SEAL, Leif Babin.  Among Leif’s numerous and impressive accomplishments is his completion of three tours in Iraq, earning a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and a Purple Heart.  Not only was I proud to have an opportunity to talk with one of our nation’s heroes, but I was in awe of his bravery, candor, and pride in serving our great country.  Leif is a true patriot.

Upon my return to my office, I read of the repulsive comments of liberal radio show host Bill Press, calling the national anthem “stupid” and stating, “I’m embarrassed, I’m embarrassed every time I hear it.”  This abhorrent garbage followed on the heels of the news of a New York City elementary school principal who prohibited kindergarteners from singing “God Bless the USA” at their graduation ceremony, replacing it with Justin Bieber’s “Baby.”  After drawing national attention, the Bieber song was also dropped from the event, but the NYC Schools chancellor refused to reinstate the singing of “USA,” which includes the following lyrics:

Aaron Klein: Cold War 2012? Russia, China playing games in Middle East [Audio]

Six Media Giants Now Control a Staggering 90% of What We Read, Watch or Listen to [Infographic]

Note: This infographic is from last year and is missing some key transactions. GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn’t own AOL, so Huffington Post isn’t affiliated with them

Hat Tip: Business Insider

Infographic Source: Frugal Dad

‘This is What a Dictator Does’- Beck Savages Obama’s Fiat on Illegal Immigrants [Video]

Read the full article here.

Obama’s Big Economy Speech: No Hope, No Change

By Ben Shapiro | June 14, 2012 |  Breitbart News

President Obama’s campaign speech on the economy today was an utter disaster for him. It was a bromide of tired old arguments, pathetic blame-placing, and shopworn con tricks. And even liberals like Jonathan Alter had to admit that it was, overall, a dramatic failure.

Marx’s Ghost

By Ion Mihai Pacepa | June 9, 2012 | PJ Media

I grew up with the picture of the U.S. president hanging on the wall of our house in Bucharest. My father, who spent most of his life working for the General Motors dealership in Romania, loved America, but he never set foot in this country. For him, America was just the place of his dreams, thousands of miles away. For him, the American president was its tangible symbol. At the end of WWII, we had President Truman on the wall. For us and for many millions around the world, he had saved civilization from the barbarism of Nazism, and he had restored our freedom — for a while. From the Voice of America and the BBC we learned that America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that.

A few days after the 2004 Democratic National Convention ended, Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of the Democratic contender for the White House, stated that four more years of the Bush administration meant four more years of hell for America.[i] Like Teresa, I am also an American immigrant, and I have spent my 34 American years under six presidents — some better than others — but I have always felt that I was living in paradise.

I still keep the picture of the American president on the wall in my home, and I will continue to keep it there until the end of my days. To me, the meaning of his office transcends the views of its occupant. The president of the United States symbolizes this greatest country on Earth, and he embodies the essence of our unique democracy: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. He is also the leader of the free world, and the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military and intelligence force on Earth.

CFR & U.S. Army Chief of Staff: Use Army for Domestic Enforcement

By Joe Wolverton, II | June 4, 2012 | The New American

 The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) proposes that the U.S. Army be used to plan, command, and carry out (with the help of civilian law enforcement) domestic police missions. So says a story appearing in the May/June issue of the influential organization’s official journal,Foreign Affairs. The article lacks a single reference to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits such actions.

In an article penned by Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Raymond T. Odierno, the CFR would see the Army used to address “challenges in the United States itself” in order to keep the homeland safe from domestic disasters, including terrorist attacks. Odierno writes:

Where appropriate we will also dedicate active-duty forces, especially those with niche skills and equipment, to provide civilian officials with a robust set of reliable and rapid response options.

What do historians really think of Obama?

By Edward Klein | June 8, 2012 | FoxNews.com

2012 Getty Images

On the evening of Tuesday, June 30, 2009—just five months into his administration—Barack Obama invited a small group of presidential historians to dine with him in the Family Quarters of the White House. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, personally delivered the invitations with a word of caution: the meeting was to remain private and off the record. As a result, the media missed the chance to report on an important event, for the evening with the historians provided a remarkable sneak preview of why the Obama presidency would shortly go off the rails.

Ed Klein on Clinton, Kenya, Wright–and Obama

By Joel B. Pollak | June 8, 2012 | Breitbart News

On Tuesday, against the backdrop of the Wisconsin recall election, Breitbart News interviewed Ed Klein, author of the #1 New York Times bestseller The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House. We discussed Klein’s own politics, his methods in researching his subject, and the reasons the mainstream media failed to vet the president when it first had the opportunity during the 2008 presidential campaign.

World War III – To Be Officially Declared [Video]

Leon Panetta and the Institute for Policy Studies

By  Christian Gomez | June 12, 2011 | The New American

Receiving very little opposition and easy questions regarding troop deployments and withdraw dates for Afghanistan and Iraq, the Senate overlooked Panetta’s past record, which puts into question the eligibility of Panetta as Secretary of Defense.

Careful observation of former Rep. Panetta’s record in the U.S. House of Representatives reveals a history of votes perceivable as in contrast with U.S. national security objectives, which if confirmed as Sec. of Defense may compromise U.S. national defense.

Winning Battles, Losing Wars

By Victor Davis Hanson | May 20, 2012 | PJ Media

Can We Still Win Wars?

Given that the United States fields the costliest, most sophisticated, and most lethal military in the history of civilization, that should be a silly question. We have enough conventional and nuclear power to crush any of our enemies many times over. Why then did we seem to bog down in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? The question is important since recently we do not seem able to translate tactical victories into long-term strategic resolutions. Why is that? What follows are some possible answers.

No—We Really Do Win Wars

Perhaps this is a poorly framed question: the United States does win its wars—if the public understands our implicit, limited strategic goals. In 1950 we wanted to push the North Koreans back across the 38th parallel and succeeded; problems arose when Gen. MacArthur and others redefined the mission as on to the Yalu in order to unite the entire Korean peninsula, a sort of Roman effort to go beyond the Rhine or Danube. Once we redefined our mission in 1951 as one more limited, we clearly won in Korea by preserving the South.

As Commandos Raid Tampa, US State Dept Demands Power to Declare War?

By Anthony Wile | May 26, 2012 | The Daily Bell

Clinton Goes Commando, Sells Diplomats as Shadow Warriors … Clinton, wearing pearls and a silver and black blouse, climbed the stage and began to speak. And soon it all made more sense. She had an idea to sell — and to defend … She described a vision in which shadowy U.S. and allied Special Operations Forces, working hand in hand with America’s embassies and foreign governments, together play a key role in preventing low-intensity conflicts. And where prevention fails, the same commando-diplomat team goes on the attack … – Wired (5/24/12)

It happened again at the recent Tampa-based conference, “Building the Global SOF Partnership” …

The US military staged a mock drill in violation of 130+ years of the Posse Comitatus Act that bars domestic forces from active use on US soil.

Should Black People Tolerate This?

By Walter E. Williams | May 22, 2012 | CNS News

Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites. Coupled with being most of the nation’s homicide victims, blacks are most of the victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery.

The magnitude of this tragic mayhem can be viewed in another light. According to a Tuskegee Institute study, between the years 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites. Black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (8,197) come to 18,515, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home.

Why Wright Matters: Obama’s on a Mission from God

By Tom Rowan | May 20, 2012 | American Thinker

When Elwood retrieved his brother Jake from Joliet prison, the two went on a pilgrimage to their childhood Catholic orphanage.  Their pitiful orphanage was under siege from Chicago’s infamously oppressive tax regime and was being put out of business.  For inspiration, the brothers were directed to a Chicago Baptist church.  The church was filled with laughter and love, song and dance, and miraculous divine inspiration that set the Blues Brothers on their own mission with a purpose: keep hope alive for Chicago orphans by paying off the corrupt Chicago regime.

The movie rendition of an all-black Baptist church led by the charismatic James Brown preacher, thrilling his flock with high-spirited love and devotion, is what gave The Blues Brothers soul.  This was what America imagined successful, loving black churches in Chicago looked like.  No wonder, then, that Reverend Wright’s scream for God to damn America is so jarring even to this day.

A Hidden History of Evil

By Claire Berlinski | Spring 2010 | City Journal

Why doesn’t anyone care about the unread Soviet archives?

MARC RIBOUD/MAGNUM PHOTOS

Though Mikhail Gorbachev is lionized in the West, the untranslated archives suggest a much darker figure.

In the world’s collective consciousness, the word “Nazi” is synonymous with evil. It is widely understood that the Nazis’ ideology—nationalism, anti-Semitism, the autarkic ethnic state, the Führer principle—led directly to the furnaces of Auschwitz. It is not nearly as well understood that Communism led just as inexorably, everywhere on the globe where it was applied, to starvation, torture, and slave-labor camps. Nor is it widely acknowledged that Communism was responsible for the deaths of some 150 million human beings during the twentieth century. The world remains inexplicably indifferent and uncurious about the deadliest ideology in history.

For evidence of this indifference, consider the unread Soviet archives. Pavel Stroilov, a Russian exile in London, has on his computer 50,000 unpublished, untranslated, top-secret Kremlin documents, mostly dating from the close of the Cold War. He stole them in 2003 and fled Russia. Within living memory, they would have been worth millions to the CIA; they surely tell a story about Communism and its collapse that the world needs to know. Yet he can’t get anyone to house them in a reputable library, publish them, or fund their translation. In fact, he can’t get anyone to take much interest in them at all.

Then there’s Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who once spent 12 years in the USSR’s prisons, labor camps, and psikhushkas—political psychiatric hospitals—after being convicted of copying anti-Soviet literature. He, too, possesses a massive collection of stolen and smuggled papers from the archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, which, as he writes, “contain the beginnings and the ends of all the tragedies of our bloodstained century.” These documents are available online at bukovsky-archives.net, but most are not translated. They are unorganized; there are no summaries; there is no search or index function. “I offer them free of charge to the most influential newspapers and journals in the world, but nobody wants to print them,” Bukovsky writes. “Editors shrug indifferently: So what? Who cares?”

The originals of most of Stroilov’s documents remain in the Kremlin archives, where, like most of the Soviet Union’s top-secret documents from the post-Stalin era, they remain classified. They include, Stroilov says, transcripts of nearly every conversation between Gorbachev and his foreign counterparts—hundreds of them, a near-complete diplomatic record of the era, available nowhere else. There are notes from the Politburo taken by Georgy Shakhnazarov, an aide of Gorbachev’s, and by Politburo member Vadim Medvedev. There is the diary of Anatoly Chernyaev—Gorbachev’s principal aide and deputy chief of the body formerly known as the Comintern—which dates from 1972 to the collapse of the regime. There are reports, dating from the 1960s, by Vadim Zagladin, deputy chief of the Central Committee’s International Department until 1987 and then Gorbachev’s advisor until 1991. Zagladin was both envoy and spy, charged with gathering secrets, spreading disinformation, and advancing Soviet influence.

When Gorbachev and his aides were ousted from the Kremlin, they took unauthorized copies of these documents with them. The documents were scanned and stored in the archives of the Gorbachev Foundation, one of the first independent think tanks in modern Russia, where a handful of friendly and vetted researchers were given limited access to them. Then, in 1999, the foundation opened a small part of the archive to independent researchers, including Stroilov. The key parts of the collection remained restricted; documents could be copied only with the written permission of the author, and Gorbachev refused to authorize any copies whatsoever. But there was a flaw in the foundation’s security, Stroilov explained to me. When things went wrong with the computers, as often they did, he was able to watch the network administrator typing the password that gave access to the foundation’s network. Slowly and secretly, Stroilov copied the archive and sent it to secure locations around the world.

When I first heard about Stroilov’s documents, I wondered if they were forgeries. But in 2006, having assessed the documents with the cooperation of prominent Soviet dissidents and Cold War spies, British judges concluded that Stroilov was credible and granted his asylum request. The Gorbachev Foundation itself has since acknowledged the documents’ authenticity.

Bukovsky’s story is similar. In 1992, President Boris Yeltsin’s government invited him to testify at the Constitutional Court of Russia in a case concerning the constitutionality of the Communist Party. The Russian State Archives granted Bukovsky access to its documents to prepare his testimony. Using a handheld scanner, he copied thousands of documents and smuggled them to the West.

The Russian state cannot sue Stroilov or Bukovsky for breach of copyright, since the material was created by the Communist Party and the Soviet Union, neither of which now exists. Had he remained in Russia, however, Stroilov believes that he could have been prosecuted for disclosure of state secrets or treason. The military historian Igor Sutyagin is now serving 15 years in a hard-labor camp for the crime of collecting newspaper clippings and other open-source materials and sending them to a British consulting firm. The danger that Stroilov and Bukovsky faced was real and grave; they both assumed, one imagines, that the world would take notice of what they had risked so much to acquire.

Stroilov claims that his documents “tell a completely new story about the end of the Cold War. The ‘commonly accepted’ version of history of that period consists of myths almost entirely. These documents are capable of ruining each of those myths.” Is this so? I couldn’t say. I don’t read Russian. Of Stroilov’s documents, I have seen only the few that have been translated into English. Certainly, they shouldn’t be taken at face value; they were, after all, written by Communists. But the possibility that Stroilov is right should surely compel keen curiosity.

For instance, the documents cast Gorbachev in a far darker light than the one in which he is generally regarded. In one document, he laughs with the Politburo about the USSR’s downing of Korean Airlines flight 007 in 1983—a crime that was not only monstrous but brought the world very near to nuclear Armageddon. These minutes from a Politburo meeting on October 4, 1989, are similarly disturbing:

Lukyanov reports that the real number of casualties on Tiananmen Square was 3,000.

Gorbachev: We must be realists. They, like us, have to defend themselves. Three thousands . . . So what?

And a transcript of Gorbachev’s conversation with Hans-Jochen Vogel, the leader of West Germany’s Social Democratic Party, shows Gorbachev defending Soviet troops’ April 9, 1989, massacre of peaceful protesters in Tbilisi.

Stroilov’s documents also contain transcripts of Gorbachev’s discussions with many Middle Eastern leaders. These suggest interesting connections between Soviet policy and contemporary trends in Russian foreign policy. Here is a fragment from a conversation reported to have taken place with Syrian president Hafez al-Assad on April 28, 1990:

H. ASSAD. To put pressure on Israel, Baghdad would need to get closer to Damascus, because Iraq has no common borders with Israel. . . .

M. S. GORBACHEV. I think so, too. . . .

H. ASSAD. Israel’s approach is different, because the Judaic religion itself states: the land of Israel spreads from Nile to Euphrates and its return is a divine predestination.

M. S. GORBACHEV. But this is racism, combined with Messianism!

H. ASSAD. This is the most dangerous form of racism.

One doesn’t need to be a fantasist to wonder whether these discussions might be relevant to our understanding of contemporary Russian policy in a region of some enduring strategic significance.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Gorbachev Throws Support Behind Obama (peacemoonbeam.typepad.com)
• Mikhail Gorbachev, Ted Turner and Henry Kissinger Attend Cold War Dvd Series Screening Photos (binsidetv.net)
• Gorbachev praises democratic Russia (rt.com)
• Gorbachev to Amanpour: Cheney and Gates liked “Yeltsin’s plans to destroy the union…” (cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com)
• Former Soviet Leader, Nobel Winner Brings History Lesson To Classroom (chicago.cbslocal.com)
• Sean Penn’s joke about Berlin Wall doesn’t leave Gorbachev laughing (suntimes.com)
• Gorbachev on AMANPOUR: Russia is “an imitation of democracy” (cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com)
• Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev Says He Supports President Obama (mediaite.com)
• Gorbachev, in Chicago, on Obama: ‘I will support him’ (suntimes.com)
• Russia Case Study (freecasestudy.wordpress.com)
• Stalin’s son was executed in Nazi camp – archives (rt.com)
• We are fighting Islamism from ignorance, as we did the cold war | Simon Jenkins (guardian.co.uk)
• The New York Times–Walter Duranty–Useful Idiots–Denial of the Holodomor–Ukraine Famine Genocide–Videos (raymondpronk.wordpress.com)
• From the archives: Chernobyl, as seen from Minsk (spectator.co.uk)
• The TV Watch: CNN’s ‘Cold War’ Will be Released on DVD on Tuesday (tv.nytimes.com)
• From the archive, 9 March 1983: Reagan calls Moscow an evil empire (guardian.co.uk)
• Friday Image: Targeting the USSR in August 1945 (nuclearsecrecy.com)

Upcoming G8 forum and the objectives behind the looming Great War

By Viktor Burbaki | May 11, 2012 | Russia & India Report

The world is entering a transition epoch, during which a big war over natural resources and spheres of influence, along with series of preceding regional conflicts, become a virtually inescapable.

Traditional “family photo” at the G8 summit meeting in Deauville in 2011. Source: en.wikipedia.org

The dynamics unraveling within the world system and driving deep transformations of the existing centre – semi-periphery – periphery layout is prone with a proliferation of serious armed conflicts.

This big war is looming on the horizon as the US is readying the scene for it in the Middle East. Far too many forces seem convinced that the war has to be the solution of choice to the lingering global crisis. In the meantime, watchers are trying to descern the objectives behind the brewing conflict. The first part of the agenda is not deeply hidden – the war should:

• help switch the attention of the Western population from the crisis to the fight against a “global enemy”;
• create conditions for writing off the sky-high sovereign debts;
• stop the US slide towards a new great depression, revitalize the country’s economy and give it a fresh start;
• re-institute the US leadership within the world system;
• perpetuate the existing financial order based on the broadly interpreted Washington consensus and the status of the US Federal Reserve as the global money-printing factory.

The same agenda, however, includes a taboo part – the plan is supposed to guarantee the survival of Israel which retains the occupied Palestinian territories and can only exist in the settings of permanent confrontation with its neighbors, provided that the West unwaveringly supports it and the Israeli military superiority in the region continues into the future. So far, Israel has had a potential to crash practically any coalition of Arab countries, while its regional nuclear-arms monopoly serves Tel Aviv both as  a means of containment and a safeguard in case an armed conflict does erupt and takes an unexpected turn. Israel absent the enemies surrounding it – a small state with no natural resources on premises – is a picture impossible to imagine. The reason why these days Israel desperately needs a great war are:

• a military triumph would confirm Israel’s high global status;
• the outbreak of war would make it impossible for the crisis-ridden West, especially for the US, the country accounting for 22% of Israel’s foreign trade and known to pour an extra $3.71b into it in direct aid, to terminate or to considerably reduce support for Israel. It is worth mentioning in the context that Germany paid the last portion of compensations to Israel for World War II crimes in 2011. Under normal conditions, propping up Israel alone may seem too heavy a burden for the US;
• the war would put an end to Iran’s nuclear program and spare Israel any potential regional rivalry in the nuclear arms sphere.

The third and, arguably, the top secret part of the big war agenda is the rebuilding of the global colonial system.

Classic colonialism dominated the world for over five centuries and was partially pushed off the global stage only in the second half of the XX century when the USSR established itself as a world power.  At the moment, one gets an impression that, due to the logic of the Western economic development, the brief post-colonial interregnum is nearing the end.  Under pressure from competitors, the Western economic system is sustainable only as long as it can draw additional resources from the outside. It’s stability takes the existence of a subordinate periphery supplying the world system core at affordable costs.

The recent developments – from the seizure of Iraq and Afghanistan to the rape of Libya and the spill of the Arab Spring – leave no doubt that the world system periphery faces a new round of colonial conquests. The geopolitical process is likely imminent since a power capable of mounting serious opposition to it is completely missing in today’s world, and the only aspect of the situation that currently remains unclear is whether the revival of colonialism will follow a bipolar pattern, with the US and the EU securing a grip on the rest of the world, or some sort of an alternative colonization model is going to emerge.

The world subject to a new wave of colonization will see a sweeping re-codification of the international law and a full scale-demise of its former Yalta-Potsdam framework. The transformation will include a definitive departure from the underlying principles of the UN charter, the elimination, on an institutional level, of the permanent UN Security Council membership, and radical adjustments to the notion that sovereign countries should be treated as equal partners in international politics.  In a not-so-distant future, occupation and colonization – if perpetrated in the confines of “recognized” spheres of influence – will be legitimized as substitutes for self-determination and sovereign nations’ rights to stay insulated from meddling. The West is already restoring the two-level format of the international relations which allows complete sovereignty exclusively to the countries belonging to the world system  core and leaving the periphery with strictly the amount of decision-making freedom transnational corporations can painlessly tolerate.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Neocons + Goldberg see coalition as heightening likelihood of war (mondoweiss.net)
• WWIII – Is This The Beginning? (lamarzulli.wordpress.com)
• Netanyahu forming war government’ (theuglytruth.wordpress.com)
• Ahmadinejad seems to soften on Israel (cnn.com)
• War Plans for Iran? (justinkirbywriter.wordpress.com)
• World War III an Energy War (blacklistednews.com)
• The Pentagon’s Total War Against Iran Will Trigger The Emergence of A Planetary Security State (disquietreservations.blogspot.com)
• 10 Controversial Facts In The Obama Deception That Are Now Self-Evident (wrc559.com)
• Obama Achieving “City Of London’s” Economic Goals. (politicalvelcraft.org)
• PH can’t depend on US in conflict vs China despite the Mutual Defense Treaty (rightonthemark.wordpress.com)
• Prelude to World War Iii: the 2nd United States Civil War (glitternight.com)
• Major Planetary Transformations (waverider1.wordpress.com)
• New Obama Executive Order Seizes U.S. Infrastructure and Citizens for Military Preparedness (truth11.com)
• America: The Two Empires (energybulletin.net)
• Lynn: U.S. Must Prepare for Future Warfare Trends (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• The 2010 to 2020 Global Crisis (socyberty.com)
• Enemies Within the Gate – Police Corruption – Infiltration & Subversion – Trade Not Aid (veteranstoday.com)
• Echoes of ’67: Israel Unites (independentsentinel.com)
• Hezbollah: U.S., West, Israel, some regional powers seek to destroy Syria (dailystar.com.lb)

How to Think About the Foundations of American Conservatism

By James Ceaser, Ph.D. | December 10, 2008 | Heritage Foundation

Contemporary American conservatism, which is notorious for its internal factionalism, is held together by a self-evident truth: conservatives’ shared antipathy to modern liberalism. Their main objections are well-known.

Almost to a man or woman, conservatives oppose using government authority to enforce a vision of greater equality labeled by its supporters, with great seduction, as “social justice.” Nearly as many conser­vatives object to the use of government authority–or, alternatively, to the denial of government authority where it is natural, legal, and appropriate–to pro­mote a worldview of individualism, expressivism, and secularism. Finally, most conservatives want nothing to do with an airy internationalism, frequently suspi­cious of the American nation, that has shown itself so inconstant in its support for the instruments of secu­rity that are necessary in the modern world.

No shame attaches, or should, to relying in politics on the adhesive property that comes from the senti­ment of common dislike. That sentiment is the heart that beats within the breast of the conservative move­ment, supplying much of its unity. This heart sustains four heads, known generally as religious conserva­tives, economic or libertarian-minded conservatives, natural-rights or neoconservatives, and traditionalists or paleoconservatives.

The four heads comprise a coalition of the willing that came together during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The remarkable diversity of this coalition has been both a source of strength and a source of weak­ness for the conservative movement. Each part came into existence at a different time and under differ­ent circumstances, and each has been guided by a different principle by which it measures what is good or right.

• For religious conservatives, that principle is biblical faith.
• For libertarians, it is the idea of “spontaneous order,” the postulate that a tendency is opera­tive in human affairs for things to work out for themselves, provided no artificial effort is made to impose an overall order.
• For neoconservatives, it is a version of “natural right,” meaning a standard of good in political affairs that is discoverable by human reason.
• Finally, for traditionalists, it is “History” or “Culture,” meaning the heritage that has come down to us and that is our own.

There are refinements and subdivisions that could be added to this schema, but it represents, I think, a fairly standard approach to discussing the different intellectual currents inside the conserva­tive coalition. Recently, however, a number of com­mentators have fallen into the practice–I use this expression advisedly–of replacing this four-part schema by a two-part division based on a distinc­tion between the concepts of “Culture” and “Creed.” The new system of categorization derives from a book published last year by Samuel Hun­tington, entitled Who Are We? in which the author offers these concepts as the two basic modes in any society for establishing national identity.[1] The cate­gories are meant to refer to the whole nation, but conservatives have applied them to discussions of their own movement.

My argument in this essay will be that introduc­ing this new categorization schema represents a huge error, especially as a way of discussing conser­vatism. The Culture-Creed distinction does not sim­plify; it distorts. Built into its categories are premises that attempt by fiat to order and arrange the different parts of the conservative coalition. Not only is this arrangement “partisan,” in the sense of favoring the Cultural category, but it also attempts, with no basis either in principle or in fact, to place faith inside of Culture, thereby suggesting a natural grouping of traditionalists and religious conservatives in opposi­tion to natural-rights or neoconservatives. Whether this attempt was undertaken consciously or not is of little matter; what counts are its effects, and these could have serious and negative implications for the conservative movement.

The Concepts of Culture and Creed

Let me now take a step back and describe the concepts of Culture and Creed. Huntington initial­ly provides a social science definition of Culture that is so broad as to be meaningless. Culture con­sists of “a people’s language, religious beliefs, social and political values, assumptions as to what is right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, and to the objective institutions and behavioral patterns that reflect these subjective elements.”

Huntington is less interested, however, in social science than in recovering a basis today for patrio­tism and for securing unity in America. It is our Culture that concerns him. He labels that culture “Anglo-Protestantism,” which refers to everything that Huntington elects to emphasize among the first New England settlers. His selection boils down to four main elements: our language (English); our religion (dissenting Protestantism); our basic polit­ical beliefs (a commitment to liberty, individualism, and self-government); and our race (white).

Since Huntington wants Culture to work as a source or standard of identity, and identity in a pos­itive sense, he allows it to evolve in order to per­form its function. In its evolved form, the Culture to which we should look refers–still–to the English language and to the same commitment to liberty and self-government; the notion of religion is broadened slightly from dissenting Protestantism to Christianity insofar as it has been Protestantized. Race as a criterion of distinction drops out.

As for Creed, Huntington initially defines it in a social science fashion as the taking of bearings from theoretical claims that are offered in principle as universal or applicable to all. Examples of Creed that he identifies are communism and classical lib­eralism. The use of these broad-based theoretical concepts is what Huntington means by Creedalism as distinguished from Culturalism. As he says at one point:

People are not likely to find in political principles [i.e., a Creed] the deep emotional content and meaning provided by kith and kin, blood and belonging, culture and nationality. These attachments may have little or no basis in fact, but they do satisfy a deep human longing for meaningful community.

Once again, however, Huntington’s interest in Who Are We? is more in our own Creed than in Creeds in general. Our Creed consists of an idea of nature, specifically of natural rights, as articulated in documents like the Declaration of Independence.

How does the binary distinction between Cul­ture and Creed replace and subsume the four-part division of conservatism? The implication is the following. The category of Culture consists of tra­ditionalists and religious conservatives–the first for the obvious reason of their emphasis on our his­tory and culture and the second because Hunting­ton identifies dissenting Protestantism as first or original. The category of Creed consists of natural-rights or neoconservatives and libertarians–the former because they regularly reference natural rights and the Declaration of Independence and the latter because they think in terms of general princi­ples of economic reasoning.

An example will help to illustrate how this bina­ry mapping of conservatism has entered into con­temporary discussion. Lawrence Auster, an outspoken conservative, publishes an instructive blog entitled “View from the Right.” Never one to mince words, he begins a spirited entry of October 25, 2005, with an attack on President George W. Bush (one of his frequent targets) in an article iron­ically entitled “Under Bush and the American Creed, America Continues Its Bold Progress”:

At President Bush’s annual Ramadan dinner at the White House this week–did you know the President has an annual Ramadan dinner?–he announced for the first time in our nation’s history we have added a Koran to the White House Library. Yippee.[2]

Arguing that this recognition serves unwisely to legitimize Islam in America, Auster finds further evidence of this same error in a passage from a speech given the previous week by Senator John McCain at the Al Smith Dinner:

We have a nation of many races, many religious faiths, many points of origin, but our shared faith is the belief in liberty, and we believe this will prove stronger, more enduring and better than any nation ordered to exalt the few at the expense of the many or made from a common race or culture or to preserve traditions that have no greater attribute than longevity.[3]

In Auster’s view, the McCain-Bush position rep­resents the perfect expression of creedal thinking:

According to McCain, the meaning of America is that we have no common culture and no coherent set of traditions but give equal freedom to all cultures, traditions and religions. Such a cultureless society is stronger and more enduring than any other.[4]

Auster may have taken some liberties with the strict claims of Bush and McCain, but his general point could not be more clear: The end result of the Creed is at best indifference, at worst hostility, to Culture.

The Problem with the Culture-Creed distinction

This application of the Culture-Creed distinc­tion to the conservative movement contains two assumptions. The first is that Creedalists are not true conservatives, but conservatives on their way to becoming liberals, if they are not there already. The other is that religious conservatives–meaning those concerned with biblical faith–fall inside the category of Culturalists. Here would seem to be the main gambit involved in this analysis: to define those of faith as closer to cultural traditionalists than to proponents of natural rights.

In light of this questionable mapping of the con­servative movement, it is fair to ask whether Creed and Culture make up helpful categories that assist in understanding reality, or whether they force the analyst to describe reality in a way that satisfies these categories.

Thomas Hobbes, that puckish British philoso­pher, has a chapter in Leviathan in which he reminds us that abstract categories are human con­structions, born either of men’s efforts to compre­hend the world or of the aim of some to dictate how others will think. The result very often is that these terms are imprecise, conflating different things under the same label and producing ever-growing confusions. Hobbes was a very timid man, and as is not infrequent with personalities of this kind, he was also a bit of a sadist. The trait served him well in describing how an individual, when employing a poorly circumscribed category, will soon find him­self “entangled in words as a bird in lime twigs, the more he struggles, the more belimed.”

Have we become “belimed” by adopting the Cul­ture-Creed distinction?

I bear some slight personal responsibility for popularizing this distinction. Last year I wrote a review essay on Huntington’s Who Are We? for The Weekly Standard.[5] In contrast to the avalanche of reviews from the Left attacking the book, mine was in many ways very appreciative. I followed the Golden Rule of discussing the work of a major thinker, which is to treat it initially on its own terms. Hence my lengthy discussion of the Cul­ture-Creed distinction, on which I offered two observations.

First, I pointed out that more than 20 years ago, Huntington wrote a previous book on America–a fact he all but hides in this one–in which he invoked the Culture-Creed dyad.[6] In both books he argues that forging our national identity requires relying on both Culture and Creed. But whereas in the earlier book he contends that America should emphasize the Creed, in the current one he argues that it should identify more with the Culture.

Second, I asked what reason could account for so fundamental a change. A higher ordering idea of some kind, contained either within one of the two principles or coming from a new one, ought to have been supplied to account for how to regulate the appropriate mix of Culture and Creed. I offered a couple of speculative comments of my own on this issue and suggested that it would be a nice question for others to consider.

In the past year, this theme has been taken up by two well-known political scientists. In a recent issue of The Claremont Review of Books, the editor, Charles Kesler, has a fine essay on Huntington’s work. He begins with some cogent criticisms of how Huntington allows the concept of Creed to slide from its specific and original American mean­ing (a support of natural rights) to its more general social scientific meaning (any kind of broad type of theoretical reasoning). The result is a category that encompasses everything offered in the name of rational principles, from the position of limited government and individualism of the Founders to the Big Government position of the Progressives.

Following this clarification of the concept of Creed, Kesler goes on to argue that we need both concepts, but that the standard of regulation must stem from the Creed (properly understood). He concludes his essay:

The American creed is the keystone of American national identity; but it requires a culture to sustain it. The republican task is to recognize the creed’s primacy, the culture’s indispensability and the challenge which political wisdom alone can answer, to shape a people that can live up to its principles.[7]

Another very perceptive article appeared this fall in Society, written by Peter Skerry. Skerry takes Huntington to task for much of his treatment of the status of the Hispanic community in America and for his analysis of the process of immigrant integra­tion into an American identity. On the major theo­retical distinction of Culture and Creed, however, Skerry embraces Huntington’s analysis and shares his Cultural emphasis. America needs both Creed and Culture, but the senior partner today is–and should be–Culture, which Skerry observes is “at the core of Huntington’s understanding of Ameri­can national identity.”[8]

Both of these essays, each critical in its own way of Huntington’s work, make use of the Culture- Creed distinction. In doing so, they, along now with many other writings, lend credibility to the view that these categories are adequate to define the terrain of this inquiry. It is this position that now needs to be challenged.

Before turning directly to this question, it is worthwhile to observe that for many “Culturalists,” there appears to be as much politics as social sci­ence in the Culture-Creed categorization scheme. No sooner is the distinction introduced than Cul­turalists put it to work to argue for their positions on two major issues of the day.

The first is the previously mentioned matter of immigration policy. Culturalists are deeply con­cerned with the current rate and character of immi­gration. Huntington devotes a large portion of his book to warning of the threat to national unity posed by the influx of Hispanics, largely Mexican. We are in danger of establishing two different cultures in the United States: one English-speaking and Anglo-Protestant, the other Spanish-speaking and, I sup­pose, Latin Catholic. Not only is it said that a Cultur­al approach makes us more aware of this problem, but also Creedalists are charged with being incapa­ble of taking this problem seriously. Their reasoning in universal terms about all human beings makes them “a-Cultural” or anti-Cultural, which for practi­cal purposes means, for immigration politics, multi­cultural. The Culture-Creed distinction is put to use as the proverbial stick with which to beat certain (alleged) foes of immigration restriction.

The other issue on which Culturalists insist today is foreign policy, where many of them are highly critical of the Bush Administration’s position on the war on terrorism. The Administration’s pol­icy in launching the Iraq war and in emphasizing democracy is again said to be a consequence of Creedal thinking, which in its universalistic per­spective leads to a naïve belief, often labeled “Wil­sonianism,” in the possibility of exporting Western democracy to the rest of the world. Creedalism blinds one to the factual primacy of Culture. If the Creedalists who have designed the current foreign policy appreciated the strength and soundness of Culture at home, acknowledging that every other nation or civilization has its Culture just as we have ours, the folly of their grandiose project of nation building would quickly become evident to them.

Culturalists here, incidentally, have their closest allies among those on the Left, including the mul­ticulturalists, who on this issue adopt the Cultural­ist and realist position. Again, the Culture-Creed distinction becomes the weapon of choice in attacking a policy even though a good number of natural-rights conservatives have expressed reser­vations about this policy of their own.

A Better Foundation

Huntington’s inquiry is concerned with cohe­sive­ness and justification–with what enables Americans to be a people, in the sense of possessing unity, and with what makes this people good or worthy in its own eyes. Creed and Culture are said to provide the categories that cover this terrain and allow for intelligent investigation of these ques­tions. But these categories, I have argued, are nei­ther adequate nor exhaustive. Even as defined, they are hugely asymmetrical. Creed refers to a doctrine or set of principles; Culture is presented as a com­pilation of existing sociological facts and realities. But as should be obvious by now, Culture is used to do far more than reference pure facts. It is itself a doctrine that selects facts and bids us to judge the world in a certain way.

It seems to me that a more rewarding approach to the study of unity would begin by separating the study of pure sociological facts–the analysis of what is (or has been) our language, our customs, beliefs, and the like–from all doctrines meant to supply an idea of unity and of right. It would then be possible to examine these doctrines without built-in presup­positions to see how they conceive of cohesiveness and deal with certain sociological facts.

Given my time limits here, I will restrict myself to three major doctrines that were put forth in the early period of our history and that remain impor­tant for contemporary politics and the modern conservative movement: natural rights, traditional­ism, and faith.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• A Positive Vision for American Conservatism (constitutionclub.org)
• Con-fusion (spectator.org)
• The Point of a Republic: (brothersjuddblog.com)
• American social conservatism here to stay (mysanantonio.com)
• Conservatism losing its way, as usual (orthosphere.org)
• From Mitt Romney to Ron Paul: The vast wasteland of American conservatism (thehill.com)
• A hopeful, youthful, idealistic and optimistic conservatism (dailycaller.com)
• Calvin Coolidge: “The Inspiration of the Declaration” (johnmalcolm.me)
• Ron Paul Campaign (which still exists) frustrated by conservatives who fail to recognize Santorum rejects Goldwater (theblaze.com)
• Marco Rubio’s liberal foreign policy (dailycaller.com)

Michael Mukasey: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights

By Michael B. Mukasey | April 30, 2012 | Wall Street Journal

It’s hard to imagine Lincoln or Eisenhower claiming such credit for the heroic actions of others.

The first anniversary of the SEAL Team 6 operation that killed Osama bin Laden brings the news that President Obama plans during the coming campaign to exploit the bragging rights to the achievement. That plan invites scrutiny that is unlikely to benefit him.

Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president’s celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.”

Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven’s, not the president’s. Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.

The only reliable weapon that any administration has against the current threat to this country is intelligence. Every operation like the one against bin Laden (or the one that ended the career of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. citizen and al Qaeda propagandist killed in a drone attack last September) dips into the reservoir of available intelligence. Refilling that reservoir apparently is of no importance to an administration that, after an order signed by the president on his second day in office, has no classified interrogation program—and whose priorities are apparent from its swift decision to reopen investigations of CIA operators for alleged abuses in connection with the classified interrogation program that once did exist.

While contemplating how the killing of bin Laden reflects on the president, consider the way he emphasized his own role in the hazardous mission accomplished by SEAL Team 6:

“I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as I continued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . .”

That seems a jarring formulation coming from a man who, when first elected, was asked which president he would model himself on and replied, Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln, on the night after Gen. Robert E. Lee’s surrender ended the Civil War, delivered from the window of the White House a speech that mentioned his own achievements not at all, but instead looked forward to the difficulties of reconstruction and called for black suffrage—a call that would doom him because the audience outside the White House included a man who muttered that Lincoln had just delivered his last speech. It was John Wilkes Booth.

The man from whom President Obama has sought incessantly to distance himself, George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success “a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq.” He attributed it to “the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks.”

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• There’s No “I” in Team Six (spectator.org)
• Bin Laden and the Braggarts (nationalinterest.org)
• The Royal “I:” The Osama bin Ladin Raid and Obama’s Stolen Valor (minx.cc)
• Former AG Michael Mukasey: Obama Officials Drafted Memo to Blame Military If OBL Mission Failed (Video) (thegatewaypundit.com)
• Stay Classy Team Obama (thewesternexperience.com)
• Scrapped SNL skit mocks Obama for taking credit for bin Laden killing (dailycaller.com)
• Video: Bragging Mr. President? Heroes Don’t Spike the Football (wizbangblog.com)

Joel Skousen: Army Document Reveals Citizens to be Treated as Enemy Combatants!

Related articles

• Joel Skousen: The Origins of May Day and The Commies (unicornivore.wordpress.com)
• Joel Skousen–Strategic Relocation: Preparing for the Economic Collapse–Videos (raymondpronk.wordpress.com)
• Secrets of Survival with Joel Skousen (newsworldwide.wordpress.com)
• Alex Jones Show: Tuesday (5-1-12) – Joel Skousen & Peter Glidden (panoffolin.wordpress.com)
• Joel Skousen -Author “Strategic Relocations” (1 of 7)-Alex Jones Infowars Nighty News 2012-04-19 (unicornivore.wordpress.com)
• Joel Skousen Comments on Strategic Relocation on The Holistic Survival Show (prweb.com)
• Joel Skousen smokes out phony patriots (fauxcapitalist.com)
• Mitt Romney’s Nutty Professor (motherjones.com)
• Joel Skousen: “Ron Paul won’t go into Tampa with enough delegates to win the presidential nomination” (fauxcapitalist.com)
• Leaked U.S. Army Document Outlines Plan For Re-Education Camps In America (johnmalcolm.me)

Leaked U.S. Army Document Outlines Plan For Re-Education Camps In America

By Paul Joseph Watson | May 3, 2012 | Infowars.com

Political activists would be pacified to sympathize with the government

RELATED: Yes, The Re-Education Camp Manual Does Apply Domestically to U.S. Citizens

A leaked U.S. Army document prepared for the Department of Defense contains shocking plans for “political activists” to be pacified by “PSYOP officers” into developing an “appreciation of U.S. policies” while detained in prison camps inside the United States.

The document, entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (PDF) was originally released on a restricted basis to the DoD in February 2010, but has now been leaked online.

The manual outlines policies for processing detainees into internment camps both globally and inside the United States. International agencies like the UN and the Red Cross are named as partners in addition to domestic federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.

The document makes it clear that the policies apply “within U.S. territory” and involve, “DOD support to U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities,” including “man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents in the U.S. and its territories.”

The manual states, “These operations may be performed as domestic civil support operations,” and adds that “The authority to approve resettlement such operations within U.S. territories,” would require a “special exception” to The Posse Comitatus Act, which can be obtained via “the President invoking his executive authority.” The document also makes reference to identifying detainees using their “social security number.”

Aside from enemy combatants and other classifications of detainees, the manual includes the designation of “civilian internees,” in other words citizens who are detained for, “security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power.”

Once the detainees have been processed into the internment camp, the manual explains how they will be “indoctrinated,” with a particular focus on targeting political dissidents, into expressing support for U.S. policies.

The re-education process is the responsibility of the “Psychological Operations Officer,” whose job it is to design “PSYOP products that are designed to pacify and acclimate detainees or DCs to accept U.S. I/R facility authority and regulations,” according to the document.

The manual lists the following roles that are designated to the “PSYOP team”.

– Identifies malcontents, trained agitators, and political leaders within the facility who may try to organize resistance or create disturbances.

– Develops and executes indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes.

– Identifies political activists.

– Provides loudspeaker support (such as administrative announcements and facility instructions when necessary).

– Helps the military police commander control detainee and DC populations during emergencies.

– Plans and executes a PSYOP program that produces an understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions.

Remember, this is not restricted to insurgents in Iraq who are detained in prison camps – the manual makes it clear that the policies also apply “within U.S. territory” under the auspices of the DHS and FEMA. The document adds that, “Resettlement operations may require large groups of civilians to be quartered temporarily (less than 6 months) or semipermanently (more than 6 months).”

The historical significance of states using internment camps to re-educate detainees centers around the fact that it is almost exclusively practiced by repressive and dictatorial regimes like the former Soviet Union and Stalinist regimes like modern day North Korea.

We have exhaustively documented preparations for the mass internment of citizens inside America, but this is the first time that language concerning the re-education of detainees, in particular political activists, has cropped up in our research.

In 2009, the National Guard posted a number of job opportunities looking for “Internment/Resettlement Specialists” to work in “civilian internee camps” within the United States.

In December last year it was also revealed that Halliburton subsidiary KBR is seeking sub-contractors to staff and outfit “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States.

In 2006, KBR was contracted by Homeland Security to build detention centers designed to deal with “an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S,” or the rapid development of unspecified “new programs” that would require large numbers of people to be interned.

Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border, the same pretense used in the language of the KBR request for services.

During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.”

Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed by Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, American citizens can be kidnapped and detained indefinitely without trial.

Read a portion of the Internment and Resettlement Operations manual below.

The following portions of the document make it clear that the policies apply “within U.S. territory” (as well as abroad in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan) and that domestic federal agencies are involved.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Read the original article here.

Related articles

• Context & Analysis: Internment Camps & Re-education Report (Updates in Process) (gulagbound.com)
• FEMA Camps Reason Unveiled by Peppermint (pepperhawkfarm.wordpress.com)

Law Professor: Fox Anchor Wrong on Eligibility

By Bob Unruh | May 2, 2012 | WND

Network host makes ‘common error’ about ‘natural born citizenship’

Attorney Herb Titus, who has taught constitutional law for nearly 30 years and was the founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va., is offering a correction to Fox News anchor Bret Baier’s explanation of “natural born citizen.”

The issue arose this week when Baier posted online his explanation of “natural born citizen” and said that the issue is resolved by federal law. He pointed to 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401, contending all that is required is for the mother to be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of these years after the age of 14.

The question arose in the context of concerns he was observing regarding the eligibility of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who was born before his parents were citizens of the U.S.

Baier asserted that people born in the U.S., born outside the U.S. to parents who are both citizens or born outside the U.S. to one parent who is a U.S. citizen are “all natural born U.S. citizens.”

Titus’ takes Baier to task.

“Bret Baier commits a common error,” he wrote in the response posted online at the Article 2 Superpac. “He assumes that ‘natural born citizen’ means the same thing as ‘citizen by birth.’ They are not the same. A citizen by birth is one who by constitutional or statutory provision is made or recognized as a citizen based upon where or to whom they were born.”

He continued, “Under Mr. Baier’s view, a natural born citizen, then, is a citizen of a particular nation only by positive law. If a natural born citizen is defined by statute, as Mr. Baier claims they are, then by statute Congress can take away their natural born citizenship status, subject only to the 14th Amendment’s definition of citizenship by birth. And even that citizenship can be taken away by an amendment to the Constitution. Indeed, according to Mr. Baier, no one could have been eligible to be elected president UNLESS Congress passed a statute designating one’s citizenship by birth, or until the 14th amendment definition of citizenship by birth was ratified.”

The issue has been in the news since Barack Obama campaigned for president in 2008. Questions about his eligibility have yet to be resolved, as he’s continued to conceal many personal documents.

The birth documentation from Hawaii that Obama released from the White House last year has been described as a probable forgery by the investigators of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse.

And if it’s not fraudulent, there are critics who say it proves his ineligibility, as it lists Barack Obama Sr. as the father, who never was a U.S. citizen.

Titus argues the father’s citizenship is important.

“A natural born citizen, by contrast, is not dependent upon Congress passing a statute or the constitution being amended. A natural born citizen is a citizen of a specific nation by the law of nature of citizenship. The law of nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states, and is universal as to place, uniform as to person, and fixed as to time. By definition the law governing natural born citizenship exists independent of any human power, legislative or otherwise. That is why ‘natural born citizenship’ is not defined in the Constitution. Such citizenship exists whether recognized by positive law or not. Such citizenship is God-given. To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be ‘natural born’ citizen of that state,” he explained.

Earlier, when Baier’s statement first was posted, Harvard-educated Jerome Corsi, author of “Where’s the Birth Certificate?,” said Baier wasn’t quite on track.

“Baier incorrectly interprets that 8 USC Section 1401 was written to define ‘natural born citizen,’ as specified in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution,” he said. “The purpose of 8 USC Section 1401 is to define ‘nationals’ and ‘citizens’ of the United States ‘at birth.’”

Corsi explained that citizens at birth are not “natural born citizens” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1.

“Nowhere in 8 USC Section 1401 does Congress make any mention of the term ‘natural born citizen’ or to Article 2, Section 1,” Corsi said.

See all of those who have made statements about Obama’s eligibility, in The BIG LIST.

Baier, who took over the time slot from Brit Hume in January 2009, previously was the network’s chief White House correspondent. Prior to that he was national security correspondent, reporting on defense, military and intelligence community issues. He has reported from Iraq 12 times and from Afghanistan 13 times.

He said he posted the information because of the questions being raised about whether Rubio and Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal qualify as “natural born citizens.”

“This is obviously getting a lot of attention … so we think we should do a full piece on the show about it … and maybe have a panel of constitutional scholars … and legal experts to discuss this,” he wrote.

“There obviously is a lot of confusion.”

He said, “The brouhaha over President Obama’s birth certificate – has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship.”

Corsi agreed.

“To novices, the distinction between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ may be trivial. Under law, the distinction is meaningful and important. A mother who takes advantage of ‘birth tourism’ to fly from Turkey or China (or any other foreign country) to have a baby born in the United States might arguably give birth to a ‘citizen at birth,’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401,” Corsi said.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Fox News anchor declares Obama is eligible (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• How Obama’s Enablers Mislead the Public on the Meaning of an Article II “Natural Born” Citizen (johnmalcolm.me)
• Bret explains “natural born citizen” requirements for president and vice president (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Natural Born Citizen? (Parts 1 & 2) (johnmalcolm.me)
• Natural Born Citizen (blogs4victory.wordpress.com)
• Obama Media Boot Click Cowardice (moralmatters.org)
• Evidence Broadens Obama Natural Born Conspiracy (johnmalcolm.me)
• Immigration Aticle of the Day: “A Kenyan Birth? Still Natural Born” by SALAR GHAHRAMANI (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
• JustiaGate: More “Natural Born Citizen” Shenanigans From the Wizards of Marx, Um, I Meant the Wizards of Smart (johnmalcolm.me)

Bill Whittle: Memebusters – The Osama Bin Laden Edition [Video]

Related Articles

• Bin Laden Dead, but the Mission Remains (canadafreepress.com)
• Pres. Obama on bin Laden: “This is not about me.” (gulagbound.com)
• Osama bin Laden papers: top 5 revelations (csmonitor.com)
• With all the “I killed Bin Laden better than you would have” talk in the MSM… (dailypaul.com)
• Osama bin Laden documents released (radionz.co.nz)
• FOCUS: A Noun, a Verb, and Osama bin Laden (readersupportednews.org)
• Portrait Of Bin Laden Emerges In Released Papers (npr.org)
• The Bin Laden Letters (aangirfan.blogspot.com)
• Osama bin Laden saw opportunity for al Qaeda in the Arab spring. (althouse.blogspot.com)
• Pres. Obama on bin Laden: “This is not about me.” (trevorloudon.com)
• Bill Clinton: Hillary Didn’t Tell Me About bin Laden (newser.com)
• Osama Bin Laden Didn’t Encrypt His Files (it.slashdot.org)

The Meme War We Must Win

By streiff | April 18, 2012 | RedState

If you think Ann Romney and Seamus the Dog aren’t important you don’t belong in electoral politics.

In the past week the presidential campaign has been hit by two events that many have termed silly. First there was the Hilary Rosen comment denigrating Ann Romney’s decision to stay at home and actually raise her children rather than elect to have a stranger do that. Second was the softer Seamus-on-the-roof story rolled out by the Obama campaign yesterday.

Many, especially our own “smart set”, have criticized the attention these events have attracted as somehow taking away from the high minded policy discussion that is supposedly taking place.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Since Mitt Romney has become the presumptive GOP nominee we’ve seen two broad lines of attack opened against him. The first is “Mitt is an out of touch rich guy.” The second is “Mitt is a Mormon and Mormons are very, very strange.”

The closest they have come to making a policy attack on Romney is criticizing him as a conservative. How this is supposed to hurt him is anyone’s guess as the major knock on Romney during the primary was that he wasn’t conservative.

Both the stories on Ann Romney and Seamus the dog are designed to build a meme portraying Romney as a plutocrat, some sort of latter day (nyuk nyuk) J. P. Morgan. For instance, the recent Paul Begala article in The Daily Beast refers to Romney as Thurston Howell III:

And I mean elite. In Mitt Romney the Republicans have the apotheosis of wealth worship. Romney has amassed a fortune so vast he is expanding his $12 million beachfront mansion and installing an elevator … for his cars. For his cars, people. If you’re insanely rich, you might have an elevator in your mansion. But a lift for your Lexus? Keep in mind he’s running for office, for Pete’s sake. What’s he going to do if he wins? Use orphans as human golf tees?

[…] So far Romney has had a case of Marie Antoinette Syndrome. Every time he tries to connect with a middle- class voter he makes the Grey Poupon guy look like Joe Lunchbucket. He brags about his friends who own NASCAR teams and NFL franchises. He casually makes $10,000 bets. He says the $374,000 he made in speaking fees isn’t a lot of money. When a kid gives him an origami duck made out of a $1 bill, all he has in his pocket to replace it are hundreds.

Romney apologists will say I’m taking this out of context. Baloney—or rather, Wagyu filet mignon. The context is that Romney truly is out of touch [my emphasis] , and middle-class voters may conclude that he is not on their side.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Ann Romney: Seamus ‘loved’ car roof (politico.com)
• Ann Romney: Dog Loved Being Tied To Roof Of Family Vehicle (inquisitr.com)
• Rosen’s Words About Ann Romney Fuel ‘Mommy Wars’ (npr.org)
• Ann Romney To Diane Sawyer On Tying Family Dog To The Car Roof: ‘The Dog Loved It’ (mediaite.com)
• Elitists for President (thedailybeast.com)

Naming Names: Your Real Government

By Tony Cartalucci | March 21, 2011 | Land Destroyer Report

When dark deeds unfold, point the finger in this direction.

This is your real government; they transcend elected administrations, they permeate every political party, and they are responsible for nearly every aspect of the average American and European’s way of life. When the “left” is carrying the torch for two “Neo-Con” wars, starting yet another based on the same lies, peddled by the same media outlets that told of Iraqi WMD’s, the world has no choice, beyond profound cognitive dissonance, but to realize something is wrong.

What’s wrong is a system completely controlled by a corporate-financier oligarchy with financial, media, and industrial empires that span the globe. If we do not change the fact that we are helplessly dependent on these corporations that regulate every aspect of our nation politically, and every aspect of our lives personally, nothing else will ever change.

The following list, however extensive, is by far not all-inclusive. However after these examples, a pattern should become self-evident with the same names and corporations being listed again and again. It should be self-evident to readers of how dangerously pervasive these corporations have become in our daily lives. Finally, it should be self-evident as to how necessary it is to excise these corporations from our lives, our communities, and ultimately our nations, with the utmost expediency.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Cognitive Dissonance Arising From Failed Self-Reliance (firedoglake.com)
• REAL NEWS April 01 (danimartextras.wordpress.com)
• Freedom Reign’s Activist Guide for Defense (occupywalkusa.org)
• What’s Going on Behind Closed Doors in Your State? (unbiasedtruth.net)
• Soros Criminal Conviction Exposes “Human Rights” Scam (activistpost.com)

Leaked Video Shows US Contractors Randomly Killing Civilians [Video]

Hat Tip: The Intel Hub

Related Articles

• “The Warrior Class”: The Blackwater Videos (harpers.org)
• Leaked Video Shows US Contractors Randomly Killing Civilians (destructionist.wordpress.com)
• Leaked Video Shows Obama’s Military Contractors Randomly Killing Civilians In Iraq. (politicalvelcraft.org)
• (mirror) Leaked Video Shows US Contractors Randomly Killing Civilians (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
• Congressional Pressure to Rein in Shadow Government Grows (pogoblog.typepad.com)
• Video Shows Syrian Anti-Aircraft Tank Firing Randomly Into Peoples’ Homes (theatlantic.com)

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) [Infographic]

To view the original infographic go here.

Dumb As A Rock: You Will Be Absolutely Amazed At The Things That U.S. High School Students Do Not Know

Staff Report | January 10, 2012 | End of the American Dream

Are we raising the stupidest generation in American history?  The statistics that you are about to read below are incredibly shocking.  They indicate that U.S. high school students are basically as dumb as a rock.  As you read the rest of this article, you will be absolutely amazed at the things that U.S. high school students do not know.  At this point, it is really hard to argue that the U.S. education system is a success.  Our children are spoiled and lazy, our schools do not challenge them and students in Europe and in Asia routinely outperform our students very badly on standardized tests.  In particular, schools in America do an incredibly poor job of teaching our students subjects such as history, economics and geography that are necessary for understanding the things that are taking place in our world today.  For example, according to a survey conducted by the National Geographic Society, only 37 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 can find Iraq on a map of the world.  According to that same survey, 50 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 can’t even find the state of New York on a map.  If our students cannot even find Iraq and New York on a map, what hope is there that they will be able to think critically about the important world events of our day?

Sadly, almost every survey or study about high school students that gets done shows that most of our students are not even receiving a basic education.

For example, the following comes from an article posted on MSNBC….

Just 13 percent of high school seniors who took the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress — called the Nation’s Report Card — showed solid academic performance in American history.

Read the full article here.

From UN Immunity to License to Defraud

By Claudia Rossett | March 24, 2012 | PJ Media

One of the most pernicious features of the United Nations is its diplomatic immunity. This is what lets the UN and its floating world of assemblies, agencies, diplomats and international staff get away with everything from running up $18 million in Manhattan parking tickets, to indulging in corruption, waste and abuse that carries no real penalty, even when outed in the press, or exposed in congressional hearings. When private companies embezzle millions, it’s a reasonable bet — at least in the U.S. — that someone will face charges, and maybe do jail time. When more than half a dozen major UN agencies involved in the UN’s Oil-for-Food program in Iraq stuffed their own administrative coffers with hundreds of millions of dollars meant to buy relief supplies such as medicine and baby milk, no one faced prosecution. The worst they got was an official tut-tut, and instructions for the agencies — including, for instance, UNICEF, the World Food Program and the UN Development Program — to cough up a small portion of the money.

True, diplomatic immunity has a time-honored place in important matters of actual diplomacy  (though at the UN, even that devolves quickly to such outrages as the annual visits of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Manhattan). But a great many of the more reasonable-sounding aspects of the UN have been over-run over the years by the astounding spread and sprawl of its globe-girdling bureaucracy. What began as a talking shop for diplomats in 1945 is by now a neo-colonial global empire, with its own envoys, outposts, and amorphous initiatives, moving money, personnel and equipment across borders, spending well over $30 billion per year of other people’s money — and draped in immunity. No big surprise that the UN is a chronic incubator of waste, fraud and abuse, which periodically erupts into scandal when details seep out. Yet pathetically little actually gets done about it, and very rarely is anyone punished.

All this makes UN-style immunity a highly attractive commodity. It’s a de facto license to fiddle and defraud, if you can get it.

Read the full article here.

The Ryan Test: Demagoguery Versus Ideas

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Jonathan S. Tobin | August 11, 2012 | Commentary Magazine As John wrote earlier today, liberals are convinced that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan to be his running mate offers them a golden opportunity to savage the Republicans about the Wisconsin congressman’s budget plans. Predictably, the New York Times delivered one of the first such salvos in its editorial posted […]

Smoking Obama’s Crack and Yearning for the Mud

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Vanderleun | August 10, 2012 | American Digest [From 2008. Only the names have been changed because the target has changed.] This downward flight of intellectuals has been going on ever since the Romantic movement began its counter-revolution a couple hundred years ago. No matter how much they flap their lips it’s a fall, not […]